SURESH PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUSPENSION order dated 11th August, 1985 as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against petitioner, a police constable, is assailed for want of jurisdiction. It is urged that the language of suspension order shows that the petitioner was suspended under rule 49-A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, but this could not have been done as there was specific provision for suspending a constable under para 496 of Police Regulations. Learned counsel submitted that since suspension was contrary to the provision of Police Regulations the order is liable to be quashed. The submission is well founded. Normally we would have refused to interfere and accepted the argument of learned Standing Counsel that even though on the date when petitioner was suspended no proceedings were pending in a court but charge sheet having been submitted on 4th August, 1986 the petition is liable to be dismissed. But there are two difficulties, one even though the order was passed as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated but the order is being defended because of submission of charge sheet in case of wrongful confinement initiated against petitioner and Rakesh Kumar Mittal, a Sub Inspector. And the other that writ petition of the Sub-Inspector against suspension order was allowed by this court. If due to some incident the two were suspended and the order passed against them suffered from some infirmity and one has been reinstated or the order against him has been quashed, it is just and proper that the order against other should not be permitted to continue.

(2.) IN the circumstances this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order of suspension is quashed. It is, however, left open to opposite parties to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Petition allowed.